3 ms·

Interesting... You started with "OP seems [...]", which sort of implies you are interpreting as well... Whatever, I'll stand corrected I guess. My (and everyo

Interesting... You started with "OP seems [...]", which sort of implies you are interpreting as well... Whatever, I'll stand corrected I guess. My (and everyone else except you!) reply is not meaningful. Edit to add: If I ask for a product that does X and respects Y, and someone says "Here are the criteria I use to make sure any product respects your Y requirement", I would accept that as a valid and helpful reply. Maybe it's just me.

cxr 6y ago
> You started with "OP seems [...]", which sort of implies you are interpreting as well... I edited that in to soften the message. It's like the approach of phrasing things to avoid use of "you" when addressing a topic, to prevent people from getting defensive—which I also do a lot and did here. Clearly that effort was wasted.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You're really convinced about being right, but I don't think the question is nearly that clear. Maybe if they said "what ad service would be acceptable". But they asked what ads would be acceptable, which makes it sound like a description of acceptable ads is a valid response. It's not like they wanted a list of individual ads!
  - cxr 6y ago
    > You're really convinced about being right If you're going to resort to personal attacks, I have some thoughts of my own.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      That wasn't supposed to be any more of an attack than "I edited [seems] in to soften the message." is an attack.
      - cxr 6y ago
        It's straight up ad hominem[1]. Not only is "I edited that in[...]", nowhere close to being a personal attack, it's a direct response to what the other commenter wrote: > You started with "OP seems [...]" 1. And I'm not talking about intent here (in the case of either remark—mine or yours). "You're really convinced about being right" is undeniably ad hominem.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        Me saying that you're confident, but that I am less confident, is not ad hominem. Generally I would classify neither of our posts as attacks. I'm not sure why you're reacting so strongly to mine.
        cxr 6y ago
        Making remarks about a person rather than the subject is outright ad hominem (once again, regardless of intent). There is no context where it isn't. I was wrong before about it being "undeniable"; it can be denied. But if you do deny it, then you're wrong.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        But it wasn't an attack. When I call your certainty misplaced it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong". It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself.
        cxr 6y ago
        > But it wasn't an attack. Here's the thing: Wiktionary tersely describes "ad hominem" as "A personal attack", so the number of people in disagreement includes: me, the person(s) who wrote that (who is not me), and then the multiple not-mes who have agreed to let it stand. Let's say that's beside the point and somehow flawed. There's the matter of your last message, where you said it wasn't ad hominem. You have changed tactics to move away from the term "ad hominem" and focus on the phrasing of "personal attack". Is it ad hominem but not a personal attack, or is it not ad hominem? > it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong" Sorry, no. At best, you're arguing that rightness or wrongness in the case of the original comment is either unknowable or unknown. That's uncertainty. Asserting that a case of ad hominem is not ad hominem isn't a matter of uncertainty. Whether it's true is knowable and known. It's known to be wrong. > It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself. This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. And I'm not "reacting strongly to be called wrong". Separately from that, even if I were, that would not make it a "bad idea to call other people wrong" (nor would it put those people into a state of being not wrong).

cxr 6y ago

> You started with "OP seems [...]", which sort of implies you are interpreting as well... I edited that in to soften the message. It's like the approach of phrasing things to avoid use of "you" when addressing a topic, to prevent people from getting defensive—which I also do a lot and did here. Clearly that effort was wasted.

Dylan16807 6y ago
You're really convinced about being right, but I don't think the question is nearly that clear. Maybe if they said "what ad service would be acceptable". But they asked what ads would be acceptable, which makes it sound like a description of acceptable ads is a valid response. It's not like they wanted a list of individual ads!
- cxr 6y ago
  > You're really convinced about being right If you're going to resort to personal attacks, I have some thoughts of my own.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    That wasn't supposed to be any more of an attack than "I edited [seems] in to soften the message." is an attack.
    - cxr 6y ago
      It's straight up ad hominem[1]. Not only is "I edited that in[...]", nowhere close to being a personal attack, it's a direct response to what the other commenter wrote: > You started with "OP seems [...]" 1. And I'm not talking about intent here (in the case of either remark—mine or yours). "You're really convinced about being right" is undeniably ad hominem.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Me saying that you're confident, but that I am less confident, is not ad hominem. Generally I would classify neither of our posts as attacks. I'm not sure why you're reacting so strongly to mine.
        cxr 6y ago
        Making remarks about a person rather than the subject is outright ad hominem (once again, regardless of intent). There is no context where it isn't. I was wrong before about it being "undeniable"; it can be denied. But if you do deny it, then you're wrong.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        But it wasn't an attack. When I call your certainty misplaced it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong". It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself.
        cxr 6y ago
        > But it wasn't an attack. Here's the thing: Wiktionary tersely describes "ad hominem" as "A personal attack", so the number of people in disagreement includes: me, the person(s) who wrote that (who is not me), and then the multiple not-mes who have agreed to let it stand. Let's say that's beside the point and somehow flawed. There's the matter of your last message, where you said it wasn't ad hominem. You have changed tactics to move away from the term "ad hominem" and focus on the phrasing of "personal attack". Is it ad hominem but not a personal attack, or is it not ad hominem? > it's the exact equivalent of how you just said "you're wrong" Sorry, no. At best, you're arguing that rightness or wrongness in the case of the original comment is either unknowable or unknown. That's uncertainty. Asserting that a case of ad hominem is not ad hominem isn't a matter of uncertainty. Whether it's true is knowable and known. It's known to be wrong. > It's a bad idea to call other people wrong if you're going to react so strongly to being called wrong yourself. This is a straightforward example of ad hominem, FWIW. And I'm not "reacting strongly to be called wrong". Separately from that, even if I were, that would not make it a "bad idea to call other people wrong" (nor would it put those people into a state of being not wrong).