3 ms·

Just an FYI - you will probably cringe when you look back at how you used to type and form sentences.

by iratewizard 9y ago

rosser 9y ago
Can you please clarify the point you're making here? Because this is a complete non sequitur to me.
- devilsavocado 9y ago
  I have no idea why you are italicizing types of logical fallacies. I can't think of a good reason to do that. And just pointing out that you believe they are committing a logical fallacy without any explanation is a very lazy discussion technique.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    > I have no idea why you are italicizing types of logical fallacies. If I were to guess, it is because it it is a term from a foreign language, in this case Latin, not because it is the name of a logical fallacy. There exists an orthographic, or perhaps typographic practice in English to italicize words and phrases borrowed from other languages, like à la carte, du jour, sine qua non, ...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rosser 9y ago
    It's customary in some contexts to italicize "loan words". The terms for the fallacies come from the Latin. Ergo... As for your second point, I think it's pretty clear from both my comments and their context why I'm pointing out those fallacies. That said, in the case of "non sequitur", I was actually referring more to the literary sense of the term — "Where the hell did that come from?" — than the fallacious "does not follow" sense.
    - devilsavocado 9y ago
      Those terms are used all the time on hn but not usually italicized, but that's fair, I get your point. When you respond twice in a row in a comment chain saying that they are using a logical fallacy, and nothing else, you've done nothing to add to the conversation, but are playing the role of Logic Studies 101 Professor. That's probably what they meant by the looking back on on your writing comment.
sctb 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14850360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14850360 and marked it off-topic.

Just an FYI - you will probably cringe when you look back at how you used to type and form sentences.

rosser 9y ago

Can you please clarify the point you're making here? Because this is a complete non sequitur to me.

devilsavocado 9y ago
I have no idea why you are italicizing types of logical fallacies. I can't think of a good reason to do that. And just pointing out that you believe they are committing a logical fallacy without any explanation is a very lazy discussion technique.
- kazinator 9y ago
  > I have no idea why you are italicizing types of logical fallacies. If I were to guess, it is because it it is a term from a foreign language, in this case Latin, not because it is the name of a logical fallacy. There exists an orthographic, or perhaps typographic practice in English to italicize words and phrases borrowed from other languages, like à la carte, du jour, sine qua non, ...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 9y ago
  It's customary in some contexts to italicize "loan words". The terms for the fallacies come from the Latin. Ergo... As for your second point, I think it's pretty clear from both my comments and their context why I'm pointing out those fallacies. That said, in the case of "non sequitur", I was actually referring more to the literary sense of the term — "Where the hell did that come from?" — than the fallacious "does not follow" sense.
  - devilsavocado 9y ago
    Those terms are used all the time on hn but not usually italicized, but that's fair, I get your point. When you respond twice in a row in a comment chain saying that they are using a logical fallacy, and nothing else, you've done nothing to add to the conversation, but are playing the role of Logic Studies 101 Professor. That's probably what they meant by the looking back on on your writing comment.

sctb 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14850360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14850360 and marked it off-topic.