4 ms·

I'm saying I think the fact that he defended himself is exactly what makes it moral. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombina

I'm saying I think the fact that he defended himself is exactly what makes it moral. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634

coderdude 16y ago
That doesn't make it moral. >>"Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams" (from the link) He needn't deceive people in order to defend his own case. That doesn't make any sense. If people want to take what he says with a grain of salt because he has an agenda that is their decision to make -- and rightfully so. Being deceptive so that people won't think you're being deceptive is illogical.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  But see your logic is exactly the problem. Ideas are opinion. Agenda doesn't matter when you are expressing an opinion. Because the opinion is biased by its nature. It matters when you are claiming to express a fact because then your agenda might lead you to pick and choose what facts you give. Facts require impartiality and that's why having an agenda is relevant there. But Adams wasn't giving facts he was giving an opinion so his agenda is irrelevant and the fact that you would dismiss his opinion because of some perceived agenda demonstrates exactly why he'd need a sock puppet for his ideas to get a fair hearing.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    I didn't say that I would dismiss his opinion. I'm just trying to get across why I think what he did was misleading and that he didn't even need to do it in the first place. To give you an example that you can relate to better: If there was a post on HN about Tom's Tech Blog and commenters were saying that "your site sucks" do you think it would be appropriate/moral for you to create a new account and tell everyone that they are wrong? Why not just post under TomOfTTB? It's not as if some random from the net is in any better position to defend yourself than you are.

I'm saying I think the fact that he defended himself is exactly what makes it moral. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452634

coderdude 16y ago

That doesn't make it moral. >>"Because many people would automatically dismiss a defense of Scott Adams ideas coming from Scott Adams" (from the link) He needn't deceive people in order to defend his own case. That doesn't make any sense. If people want to take what he says with a grain of salt because he has an agenda that is their decision to make -- and rightfully so. Being deceptive so that people won't think you're being deceptive is illogical.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
But see your logic is exactly the problem. Ideas are opinion. Agenda doesn't matter when you are expressing an opinion. Because the opinion is biased by its nature. It matters when you are claiming to express a fact because then your agenda might lead you to pick and choose what facts you give. Facts require impartiality and that's why having an agenda is relevant there. But Adams wasn't giving facts he was giving an opinion so his agenda is irrelevant and the fact that you would dismiss his opinion because of some perceived agenda demonstrates exactly why he'd need a sock puppet for his ideas to get a fair hearing.
- coderdude 16y ago
  I didn't say that I would dismiss his opinion. I'm just trying to get across why I think what he did was misleading and that he didn't even need to do it in the first place. To give you an example that you can relate to better: If there was a post on HN about Tom's Tech Blog and commenters were saying that "your site sucks" do you think it would be appropriate/moral for you to create a new account and tell everyone that they are wrong? Why not just post under TomOfTTB? It's not as if some random from the net is in any better position to defend yourself than you are.