3 ms·

I am writing now as earnestly and charitably as possible: could you tell me how what I wrote is a personal attack? I want to engage on HN in a productive way a

I am writing now as earnestly and charitably as possible: could you tell me how what I wrote is a personal attack? I want to engage on HN in a productive way and I do not mean to personally attack anyone. I think the reason you were able to link to so many instances of me personally attacking someone is because I genuinely do not understand what you consider a personal attack. I thought I was arguing against ideas and statements, not attacking anyone individually. I'd consider personal attacks to be ad hominem, which is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do in my comment — I am trying to point out what is and what isn't a logically valid and argument. Would you please help me understand? I'd like to learn and be able to engage in a manner that is accepted.

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
I think "Are you insane?" from the first link is a clear example. Not so sure about the others.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
"Intellectually dishonest" (in the great-grandparent to this comment). That's a personal attack.
- siftrics 3y ago
  No it's not. It's a technical term which means that the person is knowingly making an argument that is not valid. See the definition of validity [0] in logic. When I say they are "intellectually dishonest" I mean they are attempting to persuade others with an appeal to emotion in a subtly-crafted paragraph that looks like a rational argument, but technically is not a rational argument --- because it is invalid --- and they know it is invalid. They are attempting to win by emotional persuasion rather than a series of rigorous rational conclusions. How my statement that someone is intellectually dishonest is a personal attack, I do not know. Perhaps people skip over the "intellectually" qualifier and jump straight to the "dishonest" part? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    "Knowingly making". You don't know. And, in fact, I wrote the comment that you were replying to, and I was absolutely not knowingly making an argument that is not valid, and I still disagree with your argument where you claim that it is invalid. You're not psychic; you're not omniscient. You're wrong sometimes. And you're wrong here in your judging of my honesty. And when you act like you can judge what you can't, and you judge negatively, and you say so publicly, that is at least indistinguishable from a personal attack. So: Calling someone dishonest is almost always going to be considered a personal attack, whether you intended it that way or not. And if you do it here, it will eventually get you banned. Attack the logic or the data, not the person's intentions.
    - siftrics 3y ago
      I'm sorry, I'm still not trying to personally attack anyone. I didn't even realize my comment would be interpreted as offensive rather than a statement of fact. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty according to Wikipedia: "Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty." I read your argument as "this man emotionally affected me via a personal connection I have, therefore his argument is invalid" and interpreted it as a logical fallacy. I assumed you made this knowingly because that is like a super basic logic 101 fallacy. I wasn't trying to personally attack you or say anything about your character or intellect. I was just trying to point out that you had committed a logical fallacy and that I assumed you already knew this.
      - dang 3y ago
        I've replied to you more fully at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277721, but want to mention something here too. The problem with what you're saying here is that word "intentionally". You can't know someone else's intent from internet comments. Overwhelmingly, when person A says something negative about B's intent, B will react with hurt feelings, anger, or outrage, because they don't think that was their intent at all. (This is exactly what happened in this case, as you can see from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277408.) It will get you a very long way indeed if you simply remind yourself that you can't know someone else's intent and edit your comments until they no longer include any assumptions about intent. If, in addition to that, you make your comments without pejoratives (and especially without pejoratives that have anything to do with other commenters), you should be in good shape. I believe that you're sincerely asking for clarity here, so I hope this helps!
dang 3y ago
In the GP comment, I was reacting to this: > your intellectual dishonesty On the internet, combining a second-person pronoun with a pejorative is going to come across as a personal attack. Even this: > what you have written is intellectually dishonest is likely to land as a personal attack. Moreover, (1) you can't know whether someone is being dishonest because you can't know their internal state. Nobody says to themselves "i'm being dishonest right now", so a comment like this is almost always going to get flamewar-style pushback, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Also, (2) you don't need this! You can make your substantive points entirely without calling names, getting personal, etc. If you'd please do that in the future, we'd be grateful. Does this help?

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago

I think "Are you insane?" from the first link is a clear example. Not so sure about the others.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

"Intellectually dishonest" (in the great-grandparent to this comment). That's a personal attack.

siftrics 3y ago
No it's not. It's a technical term which means that the person is knowingly making an argument that is not valid. See the definition of validity [0] in logic. When I say they are "intellectually dishonest" I mean they are attempting to persuade others with an appeal to emotion in a subtly-crafted paragraph that looks like a rational argument, but technically is not a rational argument --- because it is invalid --- and they know it is invalid. They are attempting to win by emotional persuasion rather than a series of rigorous rational conclusions. How my statement that someone is intellectually dishonest is a personal attack, I do not know. Perhaps people skip over the "intellectually" qualifier and jump straight to the "dishonest" part? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  "Knowingly making". You don't know. And, in fact, I wrote the comment that you were replying to, and I was absolutely not knowingly making an argument that is not valid, and I still disagree with your argument where you claim that it is invalid. You're not psychic; you're not omniscient. You're wrong sometimes. And you're wrong here in your judging of my honesty. And when you act like you can judge what you can't, and you judge negatively, and you say so publicly, that is at least indistinguishable from a personal attack. So: Calling someone dishonest is almost always going to be considered a personal attack, whether you intended it that way or not. And if you do it here, it will eventually get you banned. Attack the logic or the data, not the person's intentions.
  - siftrics 3y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm still not trying to personally attack anyone. I didn't even realize my comment would be interpreted as offensive rather than a statement of fact. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty according to Wikipedia: "Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty." I read your argument as "this man emotionally affected me via a personal connection I have, therefore his argument is invalid" and interpreted it as a logical fallacy. I assumed you made this knowingly because that is like a super basic logic 101 fallacy. I wasn't trying to personally attack you or say anything about your character or intellect. I was just trying to point out that you had committed a logical fallacy and that I assumed you already knew this.
    - dang 3y ago
      I've replied to you more fully at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277721, but want to mention something here too. The problem with what you're saying here is that word "intentionally". You can't know someone else's intent from internet comments. Overwhelmingly, when person A says something negative about B's intent, B will react with hurt feelings, anger, or outrage, because they don't think that was their intent at all. (This is exactly what happened in this case, as you can see from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36277408.) It will get you a very long way indeed if you simply remind yourself that you can't know someone else's intent and edit your comments until they no longer include any assumptions about intent. If, in addition to that, you make your comments without pejoratives (and especially without pejoratives that have anything to do with other commenters), you should be in good shape. I believe that you're sincerely asking for clarity here, so I hope this helps!

dang 3y ago

In the GP comment, I was reacting to this: > your intellectual dishonesty On the internet, combining a second-person pronoun with a pejorative is going to come across as a personal attack. Even this: > what you have written is intellectually dishonest is likely to land as a personal attack. Moreover, (1) you can't know whether someone is being dishonest because you can't know their internal state. Nobody says to themselves "i'm being dishonest right now", so a comment like this is almost always going to get flamewar-style pushback, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Also, (2) you don't need this! You can make your substantive points entirely without calling names, getting personal, etc. If you'd please do that in the future, we'd be grateful. Does this help?