3 ms·

OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern. I wish more people recognized that it is a tempting and lazy logical fallacy. It is fund

OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern. I wish more people recognized that it is a tempting and lazy logical fallacy. It is fundamentally disrespectful to assume that people who don’t agree with you are too emotional. If you make this argument, you are killing your own argument, unless you support it with facts. OP demonstrates this uncharitability by asserting a lack of data, and then assuming emotions explain it. Go hang out with a more diverse crowd, OP. You are robbing yourself of life’s tapestry.

alfalfasprout 5y ago
It's particularly troubling language because depending on who the subject is, the validity of the argument is often treated differently. For example, If OP had made this argument about women I don't think we'd see so many upvotes on the comment and we'd see a lot more uproar. Despite the fact that women are routinely dismissed as being "emotional". Here, OP presents that there is insufficient data to hop to conclusions. That said, OP still dismisses "conservatives" on the premise of acting purely on emotion. The irony seems lost on OP but also other HN viewers.
karaterobot 5y ago
> OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern. Agreed that accusing your opponent of not using facts or reason makes it hard to have an honest discussion. At the very least, if reason and facts are so important to you, what about the fact that this style of argument is empirically ineffective, and almost never persuades anybody to switch views? It's even dangerous to your cause, in the sense that it makes people defensive and more extreme in their views. If you care about outcomes, don't poison the conversation. I'm also skeptical whenever I see an argument that depends on the assumption that if you just had access to all the facts, you'd agree with me. In my experience, the more facts I learn about anything related to human behavior, the more complex the picture gets, and the less certain I am that anybody has it right.

alfalfasprout 5y ago

It's particularly troubling language because depending on who the subject is, the validity of the argument is often treated differently. For example, If OP had made this argument about women I don't think we'd see so many upvotes on the comment and we'd see a lot more uproar. Despite the fact that women are routinely dismissed as being "emotional". Here, OP presents that there is insufficient data to hop to conclusions. That said, OP still dismisses "conservatives" on the premise of acting purely on emotion. The irony seems lost on OP but also other HN viewers.

karaterobot 5y ago

> OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern. Agreed that accusing your opponent of not using facts or reason makes it hard to have an honest discussion. At the very least, if reason and facts are so important to you, what about the fact that this style of argument is empirically ineffective, and almost never persuades anybody to switch views? It's even dangerous to your cause, in the sense that it makes people defensive and more extreme in their views. If you care about outcomes, don't poison the conversation. I'm also skeptical whenever I see an argument that depends on the assumption that if you just had access to all the facts, you'd agree with me. In my experience, the more facts I learn about anything related to human behavior, the more complex the picture gets, and the less certain I am that anybody has it right.