5 ms·

He was making an argument and its disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise. Go back and look at what he wrote. He basically said, "before you dismiss my idea

He was making an argument and its disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise. Go back and look at what he wrote. He basically said, "before you dismiss my idea as not having merit, go look me up." Ideas have merit independent of who has them. That's the point. He was citing his credentials to back up his earlier argument. I'm not saying that the comment that he was replying to was right or even civil and had he left off his second "Oh, BTW..." line, it would have been a reasonable response. But including it not only speaks to the comment he was replying to but also to everyone who disagrees with his idea. BTW...parodying what I said followed by condescension is also not a great look.

carapace 9y ago
I'm sorry but I think your pattern matching for "Argument from Authority" is misfiring here. Lisper wasn't saying, "I'm right because I'm me." He was saying, "Adjust your prior[1] for my statement given additional data about its source." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
- curun1r 9y ago
  Quoting directly: > Oh, and BTW, before you completely dismiss the idea that my suggestion might have merit, you might want to look me up. He wasn't saying "I'm right because I'm me." He was saying, "I'm me so don't assume I'm wrong." It's still an appeal to authority. Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct. Wow, you have quite the exacting standards.
    - curun1r 9y ago
      Hey...context matters. When you're talking about your own tendencies (whether you're likely to be serious or joking), who you are matters. When you're supporting your argument it doesn't. If you call that exacting standards, so be it. I call it reading comprehension.
      - lisper 9y ago
        > Hey...context matters Indeed it does. So let's recall the context in which I made my original comment: > Are you seriously suggesting that, widgety though JS's implicit type conversions might be, if its booleans had three values then things would be better? That seemed to me to be a pretty non-constructive question, essentially a passive-aggressive way of saying, "You can't possibly be serious. You must be a complete newbie dweeb to come up with such a dumb idea." That's why I responded the way I did.

carapace 9y ago

I'm sorry but I think your pattern matching for "Argument from Authority" is misfiring here. Lisper wasn't saying, "I'm right because I'm me." He was saying, "Adjust your prior[1] for my statement given additional data about its source." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability

curun1r 9y ago
Quoting directly: > Oh, and BTW, before you completely dismiss the idea that my suggestion might have merit, you might want to look me up. He wasn't saying "I'm right because I'm me." He was saying, "I'm me so don't assume I'm wrong." It's still an appeal to authority. Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct.
- lisper 9y ago
  > Had his credentials been part of the first line, where he was confirming that he was serious about his previous post, then your interpretation would be correct. Wow, you have quite the exacting standards.
  - curun1r 9y ago
    Hey...context matters. When you're talking about your own tendencies (whether you're likely to be serious or joking), who you are matters. When you're supporting your argument it doesn't. If you call that exacting standards, so be it. I call it reading comprehension.
    - lisper 9y ago
      > Hey...context matters Indeed it does. So let's recall the context in which I made my original comment: > Are you seriously suggesting that, widgety though JS's implicit type conversions might be, if its booleans had three values then things would be better? That seemed to me to be a pretty non-constructive question, essentially a passive-aggressive way of saying, "You can't possibly be serious. You must be a complete newbie dweeb to come up with such a dumb idea." That's why I responded the way I did.