3 ms·

The original title of this submission until it was changed was "Is the Old Testament historically accurate". My response was to that title, no it isn't historic

by sysrpl 5y ago

The original title of this submission until it was changed was "Is the Old Testament historically accurate". My response was to that title, no it isn't historically accurate.

dang 5y ago
I know, but you broke several of the HN guidelines with that response, including these: "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The article is obviously talking about historical accuracy in the context of archaeology and really in the context of a specific archeological dig. It's not about whether God created the earth in 7 days or put a bunch of animals on a boat.
- that1dude 5y ago
  Except fact is not provocative at all. They were objective with their answer and did not respond in a way that was derogatory nor mean spirited. They didn't even mention their opinion on religion, just responded "No, here would be the sequence of things". That's not even critical. You trying to weaponize the guidelines is an abuse of the community and against the spirit and purpose of the rules.
  - dang 5y ago
    That's a strained interpretation both of the GP comment and of the HN guidelines. I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community here doesn't want to argue about whether the creation story of Genesis is "factual" or not. There's zero intellectual interest in that; it is, in fact, an absurd thing to argue about, unless you feel charged up about religion somehow. > fact is not provocative at all. There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves—humans do that—and often they do it in a highly provocative way. That's why "I'm just stating facts" is one of the classic troll tropes. For example, if one middle schooler points out the acne on another kid's face, that's both factual and provocative. I've used that analogy before. Recently I ran across an old comment by pg where he made a similar point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by sysrpl 5y ago

The original title of this submission until it was changed was "Is the Old Testament historically accurate". My response was to that title, no it isn't historically accurate.

dang 5y ago

I know, but you broke several of the HN guidelines with that response, including these: "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The article is obviously talking about historical accuracy in the context of archaeology and really in the context of a specific archeological dig. It's not about whether God created the earth in 7 days or put a bunch of animals on a boat.

that1dude 5y ago
Except fact is not provocative at all. They were objective with their answer and did not respond in a way that was derogatory nor mean spirited. They didn't even mention their opinion on religion, just responded "No, here would be the sequence of things". That's not even critical. You trying to weaponize the guidelines is an abuse of the community and against the spirit and purpose of the rules.
- dang 5y ago
  That's a strained interpretation both of the GP comment and of the HN guidelines. I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community here doesn't want to argue about whether the creation story of Genesis is "factual" or not. There's zero intellectual interest in that; it is, in fact, an absurd thing to argue about, unless you feel charged up about religion somehow. > fact is not provocative at all. There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves—humans do that—and often they do it in a highly provocative way. That's why "I'm just stating facts" is one of the classic troll tropes. For example, if one middle schooler points out the acne on another kid's face, that's both factual and provocative. I've used that analogy before. Recently I ran across an old comment by pg where he made a similar point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html