4 ms·

Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy. Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy. Man you guys are really bad a

Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy. Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy. Man you guys are really bad at this.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kotaKat 1y ago
Ah yes, the San Francisco Consultant now screeching “logical fallacies!” like it’s a magic defense. It’s not, lol. LAST MINUTE EDIT: lol, [dead] comment.
komali2 1y ago
> Man you guys are really bad at this. Not really. You should have learned by now that jumping into a conversation on the internet with the wikipedia "list of logical fallacies" page open on the other half of the screen and then vaguely ascribing aspects of a comment to a cherry-picked list of fallacies basically only ever results in people making fun of you. I don't even think that would fly on reddit. People have been making fun of that style of response since IRC. If anybody is bad at anything, it's you at understanding how to have a productive conversation on an internet forum.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- j4hdufd8 1y ago
  > ... only ever results in people making fun of you. Why would I care about people making fun of me or IRC/Reddit etiquette or whatever? What kind of an argument is that? I thought on HN we seek the truth about the topic, not social approval right? Maybe you are projecting your own insecurities about discussing things online? I firmly believe I added helpful indications that the arguments could be fallacious. It is up to the readers of the thread to keep my indications in consideration or not. I would advise you to focus on _other_ arguments, instead of the potentially fallacious and baseless argument. I really don't understand the issues with using. You're all okay with using Cursor and Lovable to aid and speed up coding tasks right? Seems like such a weird double standard to me. More interestingly it seems to come from an emotional place, not a place of logic.
Otek 1y ago
it's really sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked, and ppl even accuse you of using AI like it's changing anything. we seriously need a proper public campaign to teach folks how to actually have real discussions again and to spot weak or irrelevant arguments this comment was AI generated or was it
- j4hdufd8 1y ago
  I am very happy if it made a few people think and/or get upset! My comment was totally AI generated, obviously. But as you lovingly touched on, it is irrelevant :)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked They didn’t. They mis-applied fallacies and in one case made one up. There was no substantial good-faith response to OP’s argument. Instead we got a shallow dismissal masked in the language (but not substance) of logic. It was fun to engage with! But not meaningful. The online-commenting equivalent of scrolling short-form videos and getting enraged or delighted or awe-struck for a picosecond.
  - j4hdufd8 1y ago
    Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied, please?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied Sure. OP didn’t ever reject the developers’ arguments. He’s criticising their methods for activism. But, even if OP were attacking their arguments: OP doesn’t reject the developers’ methods (remember, their arguments are never contested) because of who is speaking, but how. To the extent it could be mistaken for ad hominem, it would be in tone policing, but that’s not what you said and it is not true because OP was citing Apple’s language, as evidenced by the quotes. Appeal to corporate omniscience is not a fallacy. (And OP doesn’t cite Google as evidence for their arguments, so no appeal to authority.) Circular reasoning doesn’t apply, even to your example, because complaints not mattering doesn’t cause Google to expect them. False dichotomy does not apply because OP never argued any dichotomy. The closest they came was hyperbolic language (“perfectly” and “completely and fully”). But that’s closer to modal scope than any dichotomy, possibly fallacy of necessity since it implies future limits. Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked. Instead, just respond to the argument. This is a great case of AI corrupting a discussion through derailment and false confidence.

Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy. Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy. Man you guys are really bad at this.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kotaKat 1y ago

Ah yes, the San Francisco Consultant now screeching “logical fallacies!” like it’s a magic defense. It’s not, lol. LAST MINUTE EDIT: lol, [dead] comment.

komali2 1y ago

> Man you guys are really bad at this. Not really. You should have learned by now that jumping into a conversation on the internet with the wikipedia "list of logical fallacies" page open on the other half of the screen and then vaguely ascribing aspects of a comment to a cherry-picked list of fallacies basically only ever results in people making fun of you. I don't even think that would fly on reddit. People have been making fun of that style of response since IRC. If anybody is bad at anything, it's you at understanding how to have a productive conversation on an internet forum.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
j4hdufd8 1y ago
> ... only ever results in people making fun of you. Why would I care about people making fun of me or IRC/Reddit etiquette or whatever? What kind of an argument is that? I thought on HN we seek the truth about the topic, not social approval right? Maybe you are projecting your own insecurities about discussing things online? I firmly believe I added helpful indications that the arguments could be fallacious. It is up to the readers of the thread to keep my indications in consideration or not. I would advise you to focus on _other_ arguments, instead of the potentially fallacious and baseless argument. I really don't understand the issues with using. You're all okay with using Cursor and Lovable to aid and speed up coding tasks right? Seems like such a weird double standard to me. More interestingly it seems to come from an emotional place, not a place of logic.

Otek 1y ago

it's really sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked, and ppl even accuse you of using AI like it's changing anything. we seriously need a proper public campaign to teach folks how to actually have real discussions again and to spot weak or irrelevant arguments this comment was AI generated or was it

j4hdufd8 1y ago
I am very happy if it made a few people think and/or get upset! My comment was totally AI generated, obviously. But as you lovingly touched on, it is irrelevant :)
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked They didn’t. They mis-applied fallacies and in one case made one up. There was no substantial good-faith response to OP’s argument. Instead we got a shallow dismissal masked in the language (but not substance) of logic. It was fun to engage with! But not meaningful. The online-commenting equivalent of scrolling short-form videos and getting enraged or delighted or awe-struck for a picosecond.
- j4hdufd8 1y ago
  Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied, please?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied Sure. OP didn’t ever reject the developers’ arguments. He’s criticising their methods for activism. But, even if OP were attacking their arguments: OP doesn’t reject the developers’ methods (remember, their arguments are never contested) because of who is speaking, but how. To the extent it could be mistaken for ad hominem, it would be in tone policing, but that’s not what you said and it is not true because OP was citing Apple’s language, as evidenced by the quotes. Appeal to corporate omniscience is not a fallacy. (And OP doesn’t cite Google as evidence for their arguments, so no appeal to authority.) Circular reasoning doesn’t apply, even to your example, because complaints not mattering doesn’t cause Google to expect them. False dichotomy does not apply because OP never argued any dichotomy. The closest they came was hyperbolic language (“perfectly” and “completely and fully”). But that’s closer to modal scope than any dichotomy, possibly fallacy of necessity since it implies future limits. Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked. Instead, just respond to the argument. This is a great case of AI corrupting a discussion through derailment and false confidence.