3 ms·

Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in gen

Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in general) as a universal truth / (binary) logical statement rather than just an opinion.

mindcandy 1y ago
One of the greatest problems in argumentation over the internet is that people gravitate towards acting as if every statement is intended to define a universal truth so they can argue against that strawman.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  I don't think (or rather, want to think) that people are being intentionally malicious. Instead, I think this is a scaling issue. Natural language being scaled in ways it isn't prepared to (e.g. over the internet to random strangers from all walks of life with very different intentions). I've been looking for platforms where one can maybe more formally encode their thoughts, so that the argumentation and debating skill barrier is lowered / eliminated, along with manipulation. And I did find some, but they don't quite hit the spot, and even if they did, people aren't really on them, so it doesn't matter sadly.
- jibal 1y ago
  Indeed; thank you. That's certainly what happened here, together with ad hominem whataboutism. P.S. "please do flag and downvote rather." I don't have that capability, else I would certainly use it. "Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or support for you" No, I disagree; I think that is exactly what it was--the subject of the comment was your comment, not mine--you wrote of my statement as being a universal truth, not v.v. Unsurprisingly, on every point where you and I disagree, I think that I am right and you are wrong. I think it is best that, from now on, neither of us speak to or about each other.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    If you truly feel that way, please do flag and downvote rather. Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or in support of you, and that hijacking their thoughts to sarcastically taunt me really doesn't serve you, your point, or this community. At least I certainly struggle to find what's good faith about this comment of yours specifically. Edit: > No, I disagree; Sure, costs me nothing to take your word for it, so it shall be that way then. Definitely came across like that to me though, so if that was not intentional, maybe it's something for your later consideration.
jibal 1y ago
[flagged]
- perching_aix 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 1y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It just makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      Apologies. Been trying to work on it, it's not easy.
- dang 1y ago
  I appreciate your good intentions re the site guidelines! But I'm afraid you've been breaking them multiple times in this thread by being much too aggressive with other users. This post is one example, and here are two others: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44722043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44722043 It's laudable to want work like Pony to get discussed in terms of the most interesting things about it, but the best way to do this is to describe and explain more of what's interesting. It's not helpful to comment about how bad other comments are, and certainly not to cross into attack. Those things feed flamewars, as unfortunately happened badly in this thread. That's what we're most trying to avoid.
  - jibal 1y ago
    All I see is that I've been personally attacked and mischaracterized. If I could downvote such comments I would do that rather than respond. Calling my response here aggressive or an attack is simply not factual, it is hypervigilance against me. Where is your criticism of "Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in general) as a universal truth / (binary) logical statement rather than just an opinion." ?? I can't flag that outrageous personal attack and no one else has. As for Pony, I'm not here to defend it or explain it ... I simply responded to casual dismissals of it on trivial grounds. P.S. A personal attack is a personal attack ... it's not the target's fault for perceiving it that way. If you're saying something negative about someone then that's a personal attack. Just talk about the subject and the substance, not people. For example, do not write things like "You seem to be struggling with the whole fallacy thing by the way". And FWIW, I think I have a very good grasp of fallacies ... e.g., I know that "no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge" is a No True Scotsman fallacy but "certain Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge" is not. "Why wouldn't you be able to flag it?" Ask dang ... as I said, I do not have that capability.

mindcandy 1y ago

One of the greatest problems in argumentation over the internet is that people gravitate towards acting as if every statement is intended to define a universal truth so they can argue against that strawman.

perching_aix 1y ago
I don't think (or rather, want to think) that people are being intentionally malicious. Instead, I think this is a scaling issue. Natural language being scaled in ways it isn't prepared to (e.g. over the internet to random strangers from all walks of life with very different intentions). I've been looking for platforms where one can maybe more formally encode their thoughts, so that the argumentation and debating skill barrier is lowered / eliminated, along with manipulation. And I did find some, but they don't quite hit the spot, and even if they did, people aren't really on them, so it doesn't matter sadly.
jibal 1y ago
Indeed; thank you. That's certainly what happened here, together with ad hominem whataboutism. P.S. "please do flag and downvote rather." I don't have that capability, else I would certainly use it. "Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or support for you" No, I disagree; I think that is exactly what it was--the subject of the comment was your comment, not mine--you wrote of my statement as being a universal truth, not v.v. Unsurprisingly, on every point where you and I disagree, I think that I am right and you are wrong. I think it is best that, from now on, neither of us speak to or about each other.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- perching_aix 1y ago
  If you truly feel that way, please do flag and downvote rather. Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or in support of you, and that hijacking their thoughts to sarcastically taunt me really doesn't serve you, your point, or this community. At least I certainly struggle to find what's good faith about this comment of yours specifically. Edit: > No, I disagree; Sure, costs me nothing to take your word for it, so it shall be that way then. Definitely came across like that to me though, so if that was not intentional, maybe it's something for your later consideration.

jibal 1y ago

[flagged]

perching_aix 1y ago
[flagged]
- dang 1y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It just makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    Apologies. Been trying to work on it, it's not easy.
dang 1y ago
I appreciate your good intentions re the site guidelines! But I'm afraid you've been breaking them multiple times in this thread by being much too aggressive with other users. This post is one example, and here are two others: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44722043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44722043 It's laudable to want work like Pony to get discussed in terms of the most interesting things about it, but the best way to do this is to describe and explain more of what's interesting. It's not helpful to comment about how bad other comments are, and certainly not to cross into attack. Those things feed flamewars, as unfortunately happened badly in this thread. That's what we're most trying to avoid.
- jibal 1y ago
  All I see is that I've been personally attacked and mischaracterized. If I could downvote such comments I would do that rather than respond. Calling my response here aggressive or an attack is simply not factual, it is hypervigilance against me. Where is your criticism of "Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in general) as a universal truth / (binary) logical statement rather than just an opinion." ?? I can't flag that outrageous personal attack and no one else has. As for Pony, I'm not here to defend it or explain it ... I simply responded to casual dismissals of it on trivial grounds. P.S. A personal attack is a personal attack ... it's not the target's fault for perceiving it that way. If you're saying something negative about someone then that's a personal attack. Just talk about the subject and the substance, not people. For example, do not write things like "You seem to be struggling with the whole fallacy thing by the way". And FWIW, I think I have a very good grasp of fallacies ... e.g., I know that "no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge" is a No True Scotsman fallacy but "certain Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge" is not. "Why wouldn't you be able to flag it?" Ask dang ... as I said, I do not have that capability.