4 ms·

Ad hominem cuts both ways. If he wants to make a good argument here he should do so, but there's basically nothing in this article to talk about except how much

Ad hominem cuts both ways. If he wants to make a good argument here he should do so, but there's basically nothing in this article to talk about except how much of a mess it is. How often are you in a controversial post's comments advocating for people to read the author's other work to justify the poor quality of the posted article? I've been around a long time and I've literally never seen you do this before. Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the wrong read here?

dang 4y ago
I don't agree with that description of the article. I think both it, and Smil, deserve better than shallow dismissals and name-calling. He's writing about a particular prediction that is commonly made, and showing reasons to doubt whether that particular prediction is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, although the underlying topic is a hot one.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good. And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa. I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
  - dang 4y ago
    > Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article Until then, everything was about the headline. (And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)

dang 4y ago

I don't agree with that description of the article. I think both it, and Smil, deserve better than shallow dismissals and name-calling. He's writing about a particular prediction that is commonly made, and showing reasons to doubt whether that particular prediction is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, although the underlying topic is a hot one.

stormbrew 4y ago
You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good. And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa. I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
- dang 4y ago
  > Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article Until then, everything was about the headline. (And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)