5 ms·

Er, I guess you've never heard of YouTube shorts firstly, and secondly I haven't watched a single ad on YouTube in literally 5 years, as I have YT Premium for f

by Zetice 3y ago

Er, I guess you've never heard of YouTube shorts firstly, and secondly I haven't watched a single ad on YouTube in literally 5 years, as I have YT Premium for free through some promotion I got from another subscription I have (maybe T-Mobile). So my experience is not ad related whatsoever. Also I'm not reading most of what you're writing here, a Gish gallop is probably not your wisest move on HN.

eddythompson80 3y ago
[dead]
- Zetice 3y ago
  Hey, a comment that wasn’t a mile long. And I notice you just made my point towards me, so I guess you agree then. Good!
Eisenstein 3y ago
You having a short attention span and needing to reply immediately does not make something a gish gallop.
- Zetice 3y ago
  No, I and others in HN are aware that one form of trolling involves wasting someone’s time repeating marginally relevant points. Maybe if the user didn’t need to create a brand new account to make their point, I’d be more receptive.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Calling something a term used for a specious debate tactic when it is not degrades the ability for others to accurately make that accusation. Your one or two sentence insinuations instead of statements which can be argued against lay ground for long responses because you, sir or ma'am, are using a dishonest tactic (two actually, add ad-hominem for the new account jab) and I feel that your 'others in HN' would agree with me. Continually asking easy, loaded questions then disregarding the responses and attacking anyway is a low form of rhetoric.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief. Nor did I, "disregard the responses." I pointed out missed concepts, which to me were gaping and exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem (how do you not know about YT Shorts when talking about TikTok eating YT's lunch?). Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. I never actually said anyone was "wrong" per se; my disagreements with the arguments have been on substance (I mention YT Premium as a counterpoint, for example). I also made observations related to things other than the user's argument, but I never claimed they were wrong as a result of those observations, only that their credibility was injured.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        > Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief. Sorry but if I call a fish a cigarette it is not a disagreement over belief. In this case 'gish gallop' has a definition: The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. -wikipedia Please tell me how this applies to the response you admit to not reading. > Nor did I, "disregard the responses." You specifically said you didn't read at least one of them. > Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. You wrote that you would take them seriously if they weren't a new account. If that isn't 'wrong as a result of who they were' then what would you call it?
        Zetice 3y ago
        Funny you mention fish; there’s no such thing! So is a cigarette a fish? Might as well be. [0] You have quoted the fact, which is the definition of the Gish gallop. Your opinion is that it does not apply here, and I disagree. You do not hold authority over how to interpret English, so you cannot therefore declare factually that I am wrong, only that you disagree. As for taking something seriously or not, that’s got nothing to do with right or wrong; you need credibility to be considered, and without credibility the “rightness” of your argument never makes it to evaluation. Happens all the time in the legal world [1], and certainly not at all related to the innate properties of the person who makes the argument. [0] https://www.techinsider.io/fish-do-not-exist-2016-8 https://www.techinsider.io/fish-do-not-exist-2016-8 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits

by Zetice 3y ago

eddythompson80 3y ago

[dead]

Zetice 3y ago
Hey, a comment that wasn’t a mile long. And I notice you just made my point towards me, so I guess you agree then. Good!

Eisenstein 3y ago

You having a short attention span and needing to reply immediately does not make something a gish gallop.

Zetice 3y ago
No, I and others in HN are aware that one form of trolling involves wasting someone’s time repeating marginally relevant points. Maybe if the user didn’t need to create a brand new account to make their point, I’d be more receptive.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Calling something a term used for a specious debate tactic when it is not degrades the ability for others to accurately make that accusation. Your one or two sentence insinuations instead of statements which can be argued against lay ground for long responses because you, sir or ma'am, are using a dishonest tactic (two actually, add ad-hominem for the new account jab) and I feel that your 'others in HN' would agree with me. Continually asking easy, loaded questions then disregarding the responses and attacking anyway is a low form of rhetoric.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief. Nor did I, "disregard the responses." I pointed out missed concepts, which to me were gaping and exposed a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem (how do you not know about YT Shorts when talking about TikTok eating YT's lunch?). Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. I never actually said anyone was "wrong" per se; my disagreements with the arguments have been on substance (I mention YT Premium as a counterpoint, for example). I also made observations related to things other than the user's argument, but I never claimed they were wrong as a result of those observations, only that their credibility was injured.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > Isn't that the question, whether or not what he's doing is a "specious debate tactic"? You saying "when it's not" begs the question. It is, in my opinion. You can disagree, but your disagreement is not objective fact, just a belief. Sorry but if I call a fish a cigarette it is not a disagreement over belief. In this case 'gish gallop' has a definition: The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. -wikipedia Please tell me how this applies to the response you admit to not reading. > Nor did I, "disregard the responses." You specifically said you didn't read at least one of them. > Finally, for what I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to claim the author's argument was, specifically, wrong as a result of who they were. You wrote that you would take them seriously if they weren't a new account. If that isn't 'wrong as a result of who they were' then what would you call it?
      - Zetice 3y ago
        Funny you mention fish; there’s no such thing! So is a cigarette a fish? Might as well be. [0] You have quoted the fact, which is the definition of the Gish gallop. Your opinion is that it does not apply here, and I disagree. You do not hold authority over how to interpret English, so you cannot therefore declare factually that I am wrong, only that you disagree. As for taking something seriously or not, that’s got nothing to do with right or wrong; you need credibility to be considered, and without credibility the “rightness” of your argument never makes it to evaluation. Happens all the time in the legal world [1], and certainly not at all related to the innate properties of the person who makes the argument. [0] https://www.techinsider.io/fish-do-not-exist-2016-8 https://www.techinsider.io/fish-do-not-exist-2016-8 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits