4 ms·

> I was trying to use that example to highlight the fact that we don’t know the skills and perceptions of anyone who is posting on Hacker News. This is arguing

> I was trying to use that example to highlight the fact that we don’t know the skills and perceptions of anyone who is posting on Hacker News. This is arguing an appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what their expertise is, what matters is their claim and whether it is relevant and validly supported. While the OP title claims realism, what they meant were that the graphics are improved and exceptional, leaving the naysaying criticisms along the lines of, "that doesn't look realistic, it has weird artifacts everywhere and the animation is unnatural" more revealing about the observer than what they've observed.

rcarr 4y ago
Respectfully disagree. It’s not an appeal to authority at all, it was highlighting neurodiversity. It is quite common for autistic people to have heightened auditory perceptions, that does not make them authorities in the field of audio unless they have studied it and become a recognised authority. Everyone perceives the world differently. That’s exactly why a detective interviews multiple witnesses in an attempt to gain a more accurate perspective of the objective reality. You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. This isn’t a formal paper that must be laser focussed on a single topic. It’s a much more relaxed space that allows for discussion of things that may even only be weakly related to the original content. Someone could post a story about their time in Amsterdam with no relation to Call of Duty or video games and I would still consider it valid discussion. You can’t just just pick and choose that all technical discussion of the topic must now be about the improved graphics and nothing else. You also can’t assume that your interpretation of the title is the correct one or the one the author intended. Doing so is arrogance, which ironically enough, is one of the nine diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It is quite common for autistic people to have heightened auditory perceptions, that does not make them authorities Notwithstanding the contradiction and equivocation, this is an appeal to authority. > You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. Ad hominem, focused on me for some reason. Straw man, by inaccurately rephrasing my argument in order to attack it. And fallacy of control, apparently a belief that you control definitions of terms and how things work. This was followed by going beyond the scope of our discussion to other discussions you deem valid. > You can’t just just pick and choose that all technical discussion of the topic must now be about the improved graphics and nothing else. You also can’t assume that your interpretation of the title is the correct one or the one the author intended. Doing so is arrogance, which ironically enough, is one of the nine diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5. More control fallacy, straw man, ad hominem, but I believe this also includes the mind-readers fallacy. Apparently I am being scolded for what I secretly believe and my argument has been completely lost to the void. To avoid fallacy, one must ignore the person, focus on their argument without molesting it, avoid attempts to control them or assert what is in their mind can be known. What is said is the realm of valid argument. I did none of these things and my right to my opinion, whether correct or incorrect, is absolute.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    Congratulations, you’ve read a book on rhetoric and misunderstood half the definitions.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      Anything I may have done is irrelevant. All that matters is the argument, and for discourse to be logically valid it must only address the argument. To be vague is to be unconvincing, and any attempt to personally characterize me is fallacious argument.
      - buttercraft 4y ago
        You are expressing your opinion and rejecting everyone else's. It's not more complicated than that.
        Maursault 4y ago
        When the argument is ignored and all focus is only on the person, this is ad hominem fallacy. In discussion and in debate what someone does is irrelevant. What is argued is all that matters.
      - rcarr 4y ago
        By my understanding of the definition of the fallacies you're quoting, you are using many of them incorrectly. This would be OK if you explained them in context along with the statement that you believe has caused the fallacy as I could then get a general feel for what you mean. It’s entirely possible that my interpretation of the fallacy is incorrect and I could be enlightened by your sage wisdom. But it’s impossible to debate with you because you won’t do so. You just quote a line, say it’s a fallacy and then refuse to hear otherwise. You consider none of your statements fallacious and consider everyone else’s are nothing but. If you think something is ad hominem, tell me how you think I have attacked your character. For example, it is not obvious to me how you consider the following sentences to be ad hominem: > You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. It is impossible to have a debate with you because you’re not engaging in good faith debate. A definition of Good Faith [1]: GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. So in turn, now I will engage in some bad faith debate. I’ve been through your comment history and you frequently repeat the same tactics, most often on comment threads to do with mental health. Now I’ll use the fallacy argumentum ad populum: many other people have called you out on this boy-who-cried-fallacy strategy and your general lack of good faith argument. Finally, here’s a fallacious appeal to common sense with a nice smattering of ad hominem: 'If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.' Seriously dude. From your comments, you seem like a clever guy with a wealth of knowledge and a lot to share with the world. Why are you acting this way? https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith...

rcarr 4y ago

Respectfully disagree. It’s not an appeal to authority at all, it was highlighting neurodiversity. It is quite common for autistic people to have heightened auditory perceptions, that does not make them authorities in the field of audio unless they have studied it and become a recognised authority. Everyone perceives the world differently. That’s exactly why a detective interviews multiple witnesses in an attempt to gain a more accurate perspective of the objective reality. You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. This isn’t a formal paper that must be laser focussed on a single topic. It’s a much more relaxed space that allows for discussion of things that may even only be weakly related to the original content. Someone could post a story about their time in Amsterdam with no relation to Call of Duty or video games and I would still consider it valid discussion. You can’t just just pick and choose that all technical discussion of the topic must now be about the improved graphics and nothing else. You also can’t assume that your interpretation of the title is the correct one or the one the author intended. Doing so is arrogance, which ironically enough, is one of the nine diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5.

Maursault 4y ago
> It is quite common for autistic people to have heightened auditory perceptions, that does not make them authorities Notwithstanding the contradiction and equivocation, this is an appeal to authority. > You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. Ad hominem, focused on me for some reason. Straw man, by inaccurately rephrasing my argument in order to attack it. And fallacy of control, apparently a belief that you control definitions of terms and how things work. This was followed by going beyond the scope of our discussion to other discussions you deem valid. > You can’t just just pick and choose that all technical discussion of the topic must now be about the improved graphics and nothing else. You also can’t assume that your interpretation of the title is the correct one or the one the author intended. Doing so is arrogance, which ironically enough, is one of the nine diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5. More control fallacy, straw man, ad hominem, but I believe this also includes the mind-readers fallacy. Apparently I am being scolded for what I secretly believe and my argument has been completely lost to the void. To avoid fallacy, one must ignore the person, focus on their argument without molesting it, avoid attempts to control them or assert what is in their mind can be known. What is said is the realm of valid argument. I did none of these things and my right to my opinion, whether correct or incorrect, is absolute.
- rcarr 4y ago
  Congratulations, you’ve read a book on rhetoric and misunderstood half the definitions.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Anything I may have done is irrelevant. All that matters is the argument, and for discourse to be logically valid it must only address the argument. To be vague is to be unconvincing, and any attempt to personally characterize me is fallacious argument.
    - buttercraft 4y ago
      You are expressing your opinion and rejecting everyone else's. It's not more complicated than that.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        When the argument is ignored and all focus is only on the person, this is ad hominem fallacy. In discussion and in debate what someone does is irrelevant. What is argued is all that matters.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      By my understanding of the definition of the fallacies you're quoting, you are using many of them incorrectly. This would be OK if you explained them in context along with the statement that you believe has caused the fallacy as I could then get a general feel for what you mean. It’s entirely possible that my interpretation of the fallacy is incorrect and I could be enlightened by your sage wisdom. But it’s impossible to debate with you because you won’t do so. You just quote a line, say it’s a fallacy and then refuse to hear otherwise. You consider none of your statements fallacious and consider everyone else’s are nothing but. If you think something is ad hominem, tell me how you think I have attacked your character. For example, it is not obvious to me how you consider the following sentences to be ad hominem: > You’ve taken a tweet and you’re now trying to define a narrow window of acceptable discussion about the tweet based on it’s title. How many conversations are you having in real life that stick to such rigid parameters? That’s not how conversation works. It is impossible to have a debate with you because you’re not engaging in good faith debate. A definition of Good Faith [1]: GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. So in turn, now I will engage in some bad faith debate. I’ve been through your comment history and you frequently repeat the same tactics, most often on comment threads to do with mental health. Now I’ll use the fallacy argumentum ad populum: many other people have called you out on this boy-who-cried-fallacy strategy and your general lack of good faith argument. Finally, here’s a fallacious appeal to common sense with a nice smattering of ad hominem: 'If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.' Seriously dude. From your comments, you seem like a clever guy with a wealth of knowledge and a lot to share with the world. Why are you acting this way? https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith...