4 ms·

FWIW, it didn’t come off as a personal attack to me. On the other hand, it did seem to oversimplify and intentionally misinterpret the comment for the purpose

FWIW, it didn’t come off as a personal attack to me. On the other hand, it did seem to oversimplify and intentionally misinterpret the comment for the purpose of a shallow gag or unimportant edge case. It would be great if HN was a place for deeper commentary. There are other places on the Internet for the caliber of commentary that fits in the duration of a session of potty training. It would probably be better if we worked to maintain some of what made HN different: substantial comments based around ideas without sarcasm or insults. Just one poster’s opinion…

cortesoft 4y ago
If you think my comment was oversimplified, couldn't the same be said of your original comment? I don't think what my comment was saying was about an edge case. Many things kids want to do before they are ready are dangerous
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  I don’t know what comment you are referring to as my original comment. I only have one post in the thread. Regardless, it’s incorrect logic to point out that there are other oversimplified posts in the thread and justification. Just because someone did something bad, doesn’t invite us to do more of the same. Maybe edge cause is the wrong word. It’s plainly obvious. No one read the OP and thought: I wonder about 3 year olds driving cars! Of course, safety and exploration exist along a continuum. It’s good to let kids learn. It’s good to protect kids. So far, the thread has shed no light on the nuance. One poster has expressed an unjustified preference for kids learning their own limits and another has added the pointless rejoinder — “not 3 year olds in cars!”
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    Oh sorry, I mistook your comment to mean you were the author of the first comment I responded to, without actually checking if that was the case.
hnfong 4y ago
[Another poster's opinion] > it did seem to oversimplify and intentionally misinterpret the comment for the purpose of a shallow gag or unimportant edge case I'm surprised that bringing up an "edge case" against an over-generalized statement is considered "intentionally misinterpreting" the original comment. I think charitable reading of comments goes both ways - if we are supposed to read "Let kids discover their limits instead of purposefully (or accidentally) imposing your own." in a charitable manner, why should we assume that a short comment that brings up an edge case is (only) intended as a sarcastic dig at the original comment? It definitely forces the reader to think of beyond the "ideal" case, going into the realm of practicality. It is short, admittedly sarcastic (probably bad, but you complained about more than sarcasm), but I think it gets the main point across. Alternatively, if we're not feeling charitable, I think it can be fair to say that the original comment paints a way too simplistic over-generalization of the difficult decisions in parenting, maybe even trivializing the hardships of parenting and blaming parents for not being more encouraging to their kids despite the parents having tried their best to manage practical difficulties -- in which case the reply still makes sense. BTH I just think you (and others) were simply biased towards "positive" comments that you agree to. The long exposition by cortesoft was nice, but unnecessary once the edge case was brought up (I for one, understood what he/she meant). Do we really want to impose a minimum limit on post length just to make people feel less offended?
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  > BTH I just think you (and others) were simply biased towards "positive" comments that you agree to. What evidence supports this claim?

cortesoft 4y ago

If you think my comment was oversimplified, couldn't the same be said of your original comment? I don't think what my comment was saying was about an edge case. Many things kids want to do before they are ready are dangerous

nuclearnice1 4y ago
I don’t know what comment you are referring to as my original comment. I only have one post in the thread. Regardless, it’s incorrect logic to point out that there are other oversimplified posts in the thread and justification. Just because someone did something bad, doesn’t invite us to do more of the same. Maybe edge cause is the wrong word. It’s plainly obvious. No one read the OP and thought: I wonder about 3 year olds driving cars! Of course, safety and exploration exist along a continuum. It’s good to let kids learn. It’s good to protect kids. So far, the thread has shed no light on the nuance. One poster has expressed an unjustified preference for kids learning their own limits and another has added the pointless rejoinder — “not 3 year olds in cars!”
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Oh sorry, I mistook your comment to mean you were the author of the first comment I responded to, without actually checking if that was the case.

hnfong 4y ago

[Another poster's opinion] > it did seem to oversimplify and intentionally misinterpret the comment for the purpose of a shallow gag or unimportant edge case I'm surprised that bringing up an "edge case" against an over-generalized statement is considered "intentionally misinterpreting" the original comment. I think charitable reading of comments goes both ways - if we are supposed to read "Let kids discover their limits instead of purposefully (or accidentally) imposing your own." in a charitable manner, why should we assume that a short comment that brings up an edge case is (only) intended as a sarcastic dig at the original comment? It definitely forces the reader to think of beyond the "ideal" case, going into the realm of practicality. It is short, admittedly sarcastic (probably bad, but you complained about more than sarcasm), but I think it gets the main point across. Alternatively, if we're not feeling charitable, I think it can be fair to say that the original comment paints a way too simplistic over-generalization of the difficult decisions in parenting, maybe even trivializing the hardships of parenting and blaming parents for not being more encouraging to their kids despite the parents having tried their best to manage practical difficulties -- in which case the reply still makes sense. BTH I just think you (and others) were simply biased towards "positive" comments that you agree to. The long exposition by cortesoft was nice, but unnecessary once the edge case was brought up (I for one, understood what he/she meant). Do we really want to impose a minimum limit on post length just to make people feel less offended?

nuclearnice1 4y ago
> BTH I just think you (and others) were simply biased towards "positive" comments that you agree to. What evidence supports this claim?