3 ms·

Well, it is not lazy to use the phrase, "throw the baby out with the bathwater." That is a well defined, well understood phrase of the English language that me

by IncRnd 5y ago

Well, it is not lazy to use the phrase, "throw the baby out with the bathwater." That is a well defined, well understood phrase of the English language that means, "Discard something valuable along with something not wanted." [1] If you throw the baby out with the bath water, you lose the good parts of something as well as the bad parts, because you reject it as a whole instead of just removing what is bad. [2] The meaning is that you were throwing out the clear links in the wiki article due to them being presented at wikipedia.org. Footnote 37 and onwards. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bath-water https://www.dictionary.com/browse/throw-out-the-baby-with-th... [2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/to-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/to-thro...

paulnpace 5y ago
The phrase, as with many others, is used to hand-wavy dismiss arguments. For example, you completely ignored basically >90% of my comment, which is what people with really poor positions do to attempt to maintain some position of superiority in their minds.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  The points you made don't apply here, because they were already answered - in an answer you completely ignored and were tone-deaf about in order to type again about the dangers of wikipedia. What you have glossed over is that I was talking not about a wikipedia article but the links in the footnote section of that wikipedia article.
  - paulnpace 5y ago
    I specifically stated and made the case that Wikipedia will only allow what Wikipedia wants published to their site. To conclude some measure of criticism exists without competing claims against the criticism is a naive position. This applies to what you are linking to. Your points do not acknowledgement this central thesis. Wikipedia is garbage, using it as a base of aggregated links is ignorant or naive. To put it more bluntly: I don't care about the opinions you express regarding this topic, as you are demonstrating very arrogant behavior, particularly in linking to a dictionary dot com article on a common English phrase, as if I've demonstrated some lack of understanding in English require some assistance there. Then completely ignoring my points. You are terrible at discussion. We are done.

by IncRnd 5y ago

paulnpace 5y ago

The phrase, as with many others, is used to hand-wavy dismiss arguments. For example, you completely ignored basically >90% of my comment, which is what people with really poor positions do to attempt to maintain some position of superiority in their minds.

IncRnd 5y ago
The points you made don't apply here, because they were already answered - in an answer you completely ignored and were tone-deaf about in order to type again about the dangers of wikipedia. What you have glossed over is that I was talking not about a wikipedia article but the links in the footnote section of that wikipedia article.
- paulnpace 5y ago
  I specifically stated and made the case that Wikipedia will only allow what Wikipedia wants published to their site. To conclude some measure of criticism exists without competing claims against the criticism is a naive position. This applies to what you are linking to. Your points do not acknowledgement this central thesis. Wikipedia is garbage, using it as a base of aggregated links is ignorant or naive. To put it more bluntly: I don't care about the opinions you express regarding this topic, as you are demonstrating very arrogant behavior, particularly in linking to a dictionary dot com article on a common English phrase, as if I've demonstrated some lack of understanding in English require some assistance there. Then completely ignoring my points. You are terrible at discussion. We are done.