3 ms·

> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. You can ask for numbers without c

> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. You can ask for numbers without casting aspersions like that. This is HN. It is something like a casual conversation. You are free to ask for numbers, other people are free to provide or not provide them, and we should be able to have this conversation without leveling accusations of dishonesty (which the word “feels” does not really temper).

taeric 3y ago
I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. Consider it a critique of the message with my reasoning given. I was actually trying to find the numbers myself, and it was surprisingly more involved than I'd care for. I didn't want to give someone else more work, but happy to see the numbers expanded. I stand by my criticism, though. It feels off. If you want to say it is justified, spend more effort justifying it.
- klodolph 3y ago
  > I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. The phrase “it feels” is not carte blanche to say what you want. I could say, “Someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer.” Certainly not me, I don’t think you’re an axe murderer. But someone reading this post might think so. What this does is introduce a new topic of conversation—that topic is you, and whether you’re an axe murderer. I’ve done it without saying anything untrue. It is literally true, that someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer. That has much the same effect as an accusation, but I’ve given you no real way to respond. When you write “it feels”, there is an implied subject, who is feeling those feelings. That subject is you.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. I flat out feel it is dishonest, in the vein that it is cherry picked data to further support a point that they agree with. Such that, using "this is a casual conversation" as a rubrik, I absolutely call BS from people when they say stuff like this to me. If this was a "town square debate" where the conversation is partisan and folks are trying to score points, I'd agree with your assertion a bit more. But for casual conversation specifically, I ultimately reject this view. Now, if the poster is specifically offended, I'm more than willing to apologize on that and to clarify my point. I had no ill things to say about the poster or the main topic. Heavily critical of cherry picked data, with a justification of why.
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      > For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. No, actually quite the opposite: Reductio ad absurdum is a form of logical proof, not a fallacy.

taeric 3y ago

I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. Consider it a critique of the message with my reasoning given. I was actually trying to find the numbers myself, and it was surprisingly more involved than I'd care for. I didn't want to give someone else more work, but happy to see the numbers expanded. I stand by my criticism, though. It feels off. If you want to say it is justified, spend more effort justifying it.

klodolph 3y ago
> I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. The phrase “it feels” is not carte blanche to say what you want. I could say, “Someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer.” Certainly not me, I don’t think you’re an axe murderer. But someone reading this post might think so. What this does is introduce a new topic of conversation—that topic is you, and whether you’re an axe murderer. I’ve done it without saying anything untrue. It is literally true, that someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer. That has much the same effect as an accusation, but I’ve given you no real way to respond. When you write “it feels”, there is an implied subject, who is feeling those feelings. That subject is you.
- taeric 3y ago
  This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. I flat out feel it is dishonest, in the vein that it is cherry picked data to further support a point that they agree with. Such that, using "this is a casual conversation" as a rubrik, I absolutely call BS from people when they say stuff like this to me. If this was a "town square debate" where the conversation is partisan and folks are trying to score points, I'd agree with your assertion a bit more. But for casual conversation specifically, I ultimately reject this view. Now, if the poster is specifically offended, I'm more than willing to apologize on that and to clarify my point. I had no ill things to say about the poster or the main topic. Heavily critical of cherry picked data, with a justification of why.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    > For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. No, actually quite the opposite: Reductio ad absurdum is a form of logical proof, not a fallacy.