3 ms·

> Feel free to ask them of yourself... I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to ans

> Feel free to ask them of yourself... I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it. > ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. I will repost this for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad. I will repost this again, for fun: >> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)? - > The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement. I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you. >>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. >>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible. >>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. >> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. > I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here. I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously): perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone" I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do. Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convincing arguments against them, it seems we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do. This style of thinking seems to have become quite the cultural norm - if someone challenges the narrative, rather than address their words they're declared by fiat to be "gibberish". If a person writes too little, their explanation is insufficient, but if they write more, they're "gish galloping", "JAQing off", etc. Thinking in memes is standard and expected behavior in places like /r/politics, but I'd expect a bit more from HN. What a world it would be if HN'ers could apply the same attention to correctness that they do in threads on technical topics to non-technical topics...and if we could find a way to do it here, perhaps we could teach it to others. But of course, this sort of thinking "is" surely gibberish. > Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post The success of communication is a function of both the sender and receiver. It is certainly possible that what I've written here is useless, but the notion that the opinion of one side in an internet argument is necessarily completely correct seems a bit foolish to me. I am more than happy to consider that my words and ideas contain at least some flaws, perhaps even substantial ones....might yours be of a similar nature? Is it possible? > we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning. You can indeed - in fact, it is entirely possible to go through your entire life assuming that how things seem to you are how they are. In fact, I'd say that this is by far the most popular approach, and humanity is reaping what they sow. If you think I'm "deflecting from the topic at hand", ask me a question about the topic, and I will answer it. And as a benefit: I do not expect the same in return - you are free to ignore every question I pose to you, and I will at most point out your behavior, but I will not engage in childish name calling or stating pejorative opinions in the form of facts.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do. Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convincing arguments against them, it seems we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.

mistermann 5y ago
> It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do. This style of thinking seems to have become quite the cultural norm - if someone challenges the narrative, rather than address their words they're declared by fiat to be "gibberish". If a person writes too little, their explanation is insufficient, but if they write more, they're "gish galloping", "JAQing off", etc. Thinking in memes is standard and expected behavior in places like /r/politics, but I'd expect a bit more from HN. What a world it would be if HN'ers could apply the same attention to correctness that they do in threads on technical topics to non-technical topics...and if we could find a way to do it here, perhaps we could teach it to others. But of course, this sort of thinking "is" surely gibberish. > Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post The success of communication is a function of both the sender and receiver. It is certainly possible that what I've written here is useless, but the notion that the opinion of one side in an internet argument is necessarily completely correct seems a bit foolish to me. I am more than happy to consider that my words and ideas contain at least some flaws, perhaps even substantial ones....might yours be of a similar nature? Is it possible? > we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning. You can indeed - in fact, it is entirely possible to go through your entire life assuming that how things seem to you are how they are. In fact, I'd say that this is by far the most popular approach, and humanity is reaping what they sow. If you think I'm "deflecting from the topic at hand", ask me a question about the topic, and I will answer it. And as a benefit: I do not expect the same in return - you are free to ignore every question I pose to you, and I will at most point out your behavior, but I will not engage in childish name calling or stating pejorative opinions in the form of facts.