4 ms·
No calling an argument "utter nonsense" doesn't imply anything about the person making the argument. You may think it is ad hominem but technically it simply is
by twayt 4y ago
No calling an argument "utter nonsense" doesn't imply anything about the person making the argument. You may think it is ad hominem but technically it simply isn't since it isn't directed to a person but rather their argument.
However, in this context, calling their argument "utter nonsense" is utterly unnecessary and only serves to up the ante.
- dang 4y agoIt isn't just about being personal (though that's particularly bad). It's about not tossing in pejoratives and putdowns. The HN guidelines are clear about this: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." We don't want name-calling (in this sense) because it leads to dumber, nastier internet discussion. It's also particularly easy to avoid. If you take out its first sentence, the GP comment loses nothing but hostility and becomes a far better HN contribution. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- twayt 4y agoI think you misunderstood my comment. I agree with the spirit of the rule and hold a similar view to what you explained. I was pointing out to the commenter that while it was not technically as hominem, it is still not acceptable and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
- dang 4y agoOops, I think I might have replied to the wrong comment. Sorry about that!
- quickthrower2 4y agoGood point (I might be replying to edited version?)
- twayt 4y agoThere is no edited version